Multisite MRI reproducibility of lateral ventricular volume using the NAIMS cooperative pilot dataset. Issue 5 (5th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jakimovski, Dejan; Zivadinov, Robert; Bergsland, Niels; Oh, Jiwon; Martin, Melissa; Shinohara, Russell T.; Bakshi, Rohit; Calabresi, Peter A.; Papinutto, Nico; Pelletier, Daniel; Dwyer, Michael G.
• Is Part Of: Journal of neuroimaging. Volume 32:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 910
• Page End: 919
• Publication Date: 2022-04-05
• Subjects: FLAIR -- lateral ventricular volume -- MRI -- multiple sclerosis -- reproducibility; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Système nerveux -- Maladies -- Diagnostic -- Périodiques; Imagerie médicale; Neuroimagerie; Neurologie; Système nerveux; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.804754
• DOI: 10.1111/jon.12998
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1051-2284

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Purpose: The North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (NAIMS) multisite project identified interscanner reproducibility issues with T1‐based whole brain volume (WBV). Lateral ventricular volume (LVV) acquired on T2‐fluid‐attenuated inverse recovery (FLAIR) scans has been proposed as a robust proxy measure. Therefore, we sought to determine the relative magnitude of scanner‐induced T2‐FLAIR‐based LVV and T1‐based WBV measurement errors in relation to clinically meaningful changes. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of the NAIMS pilot dataset in which a relapsing‐remitting MS patient with no intrastudy clinical or radiological activity was imaged twice on seven different Siemens scanners across the United States. LVV was determined using the automated NeuroSTREAM technique on T2‐FLAIR and WBV was determined with SIENAX on high‐resolution T1‐MPRAGE. Average LVV and WBV were measured, and absolute intrascanner and interscanner coefficients of variation (CoVs) were calculated. The variabilities were compared to previously established annual pathological and clinically meaningful cutoffs of 0.40% for WBV and of 3.51% for LVV. Results: Mean LVV across all seven scan/rescan pairs was 45.87 ± 1.15 ml. Average LVV intrascanner CoV was 1.42% and interscanner CoV was 1.78%, both smaller than the reported annualized clinically meaningful cutoff of 3.51%. In contrast, intra‐ and interscanner CoVs for WBV (0.99% and 1.15%) were both higher than the established cutoff of 0.40%. Individually, 1/7 intrasite and 2/7 intersite pair‐wise LVV comparisons were above the 3.51% cutoff, whereas 4/7 intrasite and 7/7 intersite WBV comparisons were above the 0.40% cutoff. Conclusion: Fully automated LVV segmentation has higher absolute variability than WBV, but much lower relative variability compared to clinically relevant changes, and may therefore be a meaningful proxy outcome measure of neurodegeneration.